March 22, 2018 5:03PM

Big Spenders Dominate

By Chris Edwards

Congressional leaders have agreed to a 2,232-page omnibus spending package that allocates federal discretionary spending for 2018. Defense and nondefense spending levels are jacked up, budget caps are blown through, and the deficit is soaring.


You could say that the (nominally spendthrift) Democrats took the (nominally frugal) Republicans to the cleaners. But the real problem is that the great majority of members in both parties love federal spending. They think it unambiguously helps people; they are oblivious to constitutional federalism; they are willing to load more debt onto young people; and they have no idea about the negative consequences of government spending, such as the crowding out of private‐​sector activities.


It is amazing how many liberal priorities are included in the omnibus, despite the Republicans having the White House and majorities in both chambers. The Democrats highlighted some of their big‐​spending wins here:

  • Nondefense discretionary spending up $63 billion in 2018.
  • More for Head Start.
  • More for the child care and development block grant.
  • More for K-12 subsidies.
  • More for college subsidies.
  • More for renewable energy subsidies.
  • More for Amtrak subsidies.
  • More for urban rail subsidies.
  • More for community development subsidies.
  • More for the EPA.
  • More for public housing subsidies.

Aside from these increases in traditionally liberal programs, there were spending increases on many other programs that are also not properly federal activities, such as state‐​local policing and state infrastructure. If we are ever going to tackle massive federal deficits, we have to start cutting federal subsidies for state‐​local activities. But those subsidies keep rising.


More evidence on the bipartisan spending disease came Tuesday as HUD Secretary Ben Carson defended the administration’s budget to the appropriations committee. Carson did a fine job. He had many facts at his disposal, he generally defended the administration’s proposed cuts, and he deflected seemingly unfair accusations about his office expenses.


What struck me was that in the hearing’s Q&A, not a single Republican member spoke out in favor of the administration’s proposed HUD budget cuts. This is a department chock full of 1960s‐​style liberal interventionist programs, such as public housing and community development. If Republican members were conservatives, they would have lauded the proposed HUD cuts, but they did not.


It is sad reality that we get much more resistance to spending on Capitol Hill when Republicans are in the minority.